Translated from Zutang Ji in the section of zen teacher Huairang

.

馬和尚在一處坐，讓和尚將磚去面前石上磨。

Upadhyaya Ma was sitting [in meditation] at one place. Upadhyaya [Huai]rang brought a tile in front of him and [started] grinding it on a rock.

馬師問：「作什摩？」師曰：「磨磚作鏡。」馬師曰：「磨磚豈得成鏡？」師曰：「磨磚尚不成鏡，坐禪豈得成佛也？」

Teacher Ma asked: “What [are you] doing?”

Teacher [Huairang] said: “Grinding tile to make mirror.”

Teacher Ma said: “How can grinding tile attain to [it] becoming mirror?”

Teacher [Huairang] said: “Since grinding tile cannot become mirror, how can sitting in zen/meditation attain to [one] becoming Buddha¹ ?”

馬師曰：「如何即是？」師曰：「如人駕車，車若不行，打車即是，打牛即是？」師又曰：「汝為學坐禪，為學坐佛？若學坐禪，禪非坐臥。若學坐佛，佛非定相。於法無住，不可取舍，何為之乎？汝若坐佛，卻是殺佛。若執坐相，非解脫理也。」

Teacher Ma said: “What is it thus [to be then]?”

Teacher [Huairang] said: “Like a person driving a cart, if the cart’s not moving, is it thus to be hitting the cart, or is it thus to be hitting the ox?

Teacher [Huairang] continued saying: “You are doing [this] to learn sitting in zen/meditation or to learn sitting as a Buddha? If [it’s] to learn sitting in zen/meditation, zen/meditation isn’t sitting or reclining. If [it’s] to learn sitting as a Buddha, Buddha isn’t fixed characteristics. With regards to the dharma, [there is to be] no abiding/dwelling. In not grasping and forsaking, what’s there to be? If you sit [as] Buddha, [this is] instead killing Buddha. If [you] grip to the characteristic of sitting, [this is] not the principle of moksha² .”

馬師聞師所說，從座而起，禮拜問曰：「如何用心即合禪定無相三昧？」師曰：「汝學心地法門，猶如下種。我說法要，譬彼天澤。汝緣合故，當見於道。」

Teacher Ma, having heard what Teacher [Huairang] said, [thus] stood up from [his] seat and prostrated, and then asked: “How to use mind to fit with zen meditation’s samadhi of non-characteristic?”

Teacher [Huairang] said: “You, learning the mind-ground dharma-gates^3, is like sowing seeds⁴ . I, saying the essential dharma, is like the water from heaven. [If] therefore your condition fits, then there [will be] seeing of the way.”

又問：「和尚見道，當見何道？道非色故，云何能觀？」師曰：「心地法眼能見於道，無相三昧亦復然乎？」

Teacher Ma continued asking: “Upadhyaya, in seeing the way, what is the way that is seen? Since the way has no form, [please] say what can be observed/contemplated.”

Teacher [Huairang] said: “The dharma-eye of the mind-ground can see the way. The samadhi of non-characteristic is as such too.”

馬師曰：「可有成壞不？」師曰：「若契於道，無始無終，不成不懷，不聚不散，不長不短，不靜不亂，不急不緩。若如是解，當名為道。汝受吾教，聽吾偈曰：心地含諸種，遇澤悉皆萌。三昧花無相，何壞復何成？」

Teacher Ma said: “Is there becoming and decaying [of the way] or not?”

Teacher [Huairang] said: “If in accord to the way, there is no beginning and no end, no becoming and no decaying, no composition/gathering and no decomposition/separation, no long and no short, no quiescence and no chaos, no fast and no slow. If interpreted as such, it should be named as the way. You’ve received my teaching, listen to my gatha [too] –

The mind-ground holds myriad seeds⁵

In meeting water they all sprout

The flower of samadhi is without characteristic

How is there decaying and how is there becoming”

.

.

1. Can refer to my previous post on Maha-abhijna-jnana-abhibhu Buddha sitting in bodhimanda for kalpas without becoming Buddha. Might be helpful to consider the various meanings of Buddha in the context of Mahayana Buddhism to appreciate these cases.

2. Moksha (解脫 jie tuo) is liberation. In Buddhism, moksha can be said to be ‘released’. As such, gripping to characteristics won’t be the principle of moksha/release.

3. Mind-ground dharma-gates (心地法門 xin di fa men) is based on the premise that the myriad dharmas are constructed and arisen in dependence to mind. This mind can be called the mind-ground. So the realisation of this so-called mind-ground is through the elimination of afflictions/obscurations by making use of the various dharmas (or dharma-gates) taught, while not clinging to the dharmas themselves too. A common Mahayana system of dharma-gates to realise the so-called mind-ground is that of the gradated stages of practice, like that of the mundane ten dwellings, ten conducts, ten transferences, ten meditative samadhis and ten noble grounds/bhumis. There are slight variations of such systems of dharma-gate in different Mahayana sutras. Can refer to the mind-ground dharma-gate system taught in the Brahmajala Sutra, or can refer to the system in Avatamsaka Sutra.

4. Note that zen teacher Huairang is not against practices like sitting meditation as dharma-gates within the context of mind-ground. He even likens such practices as sowing the seeds, similar to what other zen teachers say about dharma practices as preparatory work. Can refer to Yangshan’s comment about practising calm meditation, or Wansong’s comment on samatha-vipassana for those whose preparation is inadequate, or Baizhang’s comment on the threefold trainings of precept/meditation/wisdom for those ignorant of Buddhist teachings.

5. Seems similar to the teaching of alaya-vijnana as storehouse consciousness in the Yogacara system.

.

I know Chan focuses on Sudden Awakening, but I am also one who thinks doctrinal study should complement practice, but after learning about these markers, I don't find much about it. What are they and how are they conceptualized in Chan? Are there resources that explain them both from a doctrinal and practice orientation?

As a student of Zen for two decades I was taken aback by Cole’s ideas. I do not agree with him, to be clear. Nonetheless I ponder how I would react if he were correct. I wanted to see how other Zen adherents would respond.

If anyone wants to know my answer to the hypothetical, I will share it.

For those not aware of Cole’s work here are references to read up on. The first is a relatively short paper he wrote that sums up his position. The second two are full length books:

Early Chan Buddhism: A Meditation Movement or New Ways of Writing about Final Authority in Tang China?

Fathering Your Father

Patriarchs on Paper

I am looking for talks by Simon Child. I have only found older material on YouTube (from over 10 years ago), and I could not locate anything on the Western Chan Fellowship website.

If anyone can share some links, I would be very grateful.

Hello everyone I am new to Chan and don't have a teacher currently as the closest temple is of Fo Guang Shan but that's in my state's capital(I have emailed them though, even if no reply until now), but I have been following this mini series on Buddhist meditation to meditate on Fo Guang Shan English Dharma Services Channel on YouTube.

Among them, this video on Shamatha, I have been following— https://youtu.be/FyTHNf_fBws?si=CkaLMkKqPiGDMn0n

But my question is, that I can meditate and focus on my breath quite well, but after meditating for a while, as in 45 minutes or so, I feel strain on my left eye, though there is also in my right eye also, and keeping the slight gap when meditating I think causes it.

When I begin it doesn't happen, after meditating for a while it does. Is there a reason this might be happening?

I'm not asking whether you think creating a new school is a good or bad idea. I'm more interested in what someone could easily misunderstand or overlook. I'd especially like to hear from people who have studied Buddhism seriously or actually practice within a Buddhist tradition.

If you could give one piece of advice to someone who wanted to create a new Buddhist school today, what would it be?

please and thank you :)

i find myself believing in both but im suffering from internal conflicts whether these are compatible or im just holding contradictory views. is hermeticism compatible with buddhism? if so, with which school is it the most compatible? i heard that chan/zen, yogacara and some vajrayana schools might be, at least to some degree. could anyone offer their perspective from chan/zen? thanks

The Tao sounds like a "true self", as Brahman in Advaita Vedanta. This apparently was heterodox in all schools of Buddhism.

Yet historically the Chinese people practiced both, and I mean the same person was both Buddhist and Taoist (and ethically Confucian).

How did they make the Tao, the boundless ocean of continously flowing and evidently pantheistic Qi, fit with the notion of Anatman and the Dharmakaya ?

And how does Chan conceive reality ? Is it Pantheistic, Panentheistic or does it not believe in any eternal substance or self ?

Sun., June 28, 2026
10:00 am - 12:00 pm Open Meditation -
Chan: The Practice of Wonderment with Guest Teacher Guo Gu
10:00a Open Meditation
11.00a Dharma Talk by Guo Gu
12:00p Community Lunch

Nalandabodhi Seattle
3902 Woodland Park Ave N #7929
98103

https://seattle.nalandabodhi.org/events/sunday-chan-guo-gu-2026-06-28/

Also

Sun., June 28, 2026
2:00 pm - 6:00 pm
Half-day Silent Illumination Practice Retreat with Guo Gu

https://seattle.nalandabodhi.org/events/half-day-silent-illumination-practice-retreat-with-guo-gu/

A simple appreciation post. I've heard about Guo Gu months ago and his dharma talks already seemed very insightful and well structured.

He's very good at addressing daily/convential-life issues through the Ch'an lens, without ever losing the authenticity of it by sourcing everything : quotes, names, dates, links to other schools of Buddhism and such and such. He also backs-up a LOT of what he says with modern psychoanalysis and neuroscience concepts which is a very reassuring fact and something I'd do myself to "attract" as many skeptical and empirical people to the Dharma.

To me he's one of, if not THE best modern Dharma teacher (I think the Thai Forest tradition Ajahns are pretty robust as well) we have on earth right now. He has the sublime and wise use of simple but efficient words and an overall very appealing and relaxing way of phrasing things. Sometimes his vocal tone will change when a particular idea or teaching must be stressed, as if it were urgent for oneself to start questioning the matter, as J. Krishnamurti used to do during his talks.

Currently I'm practicing gong-an with his fantastic commentary on the Gateless Barrier/Wumen Guan and it's an easy tell to see how experienced he is and how legitimate he's a successor to the already fantastically good master Sheng-Yen from the Dharma Drum lineage.

Have a nice day everyone. :)

I will just shoot straight here: I find David Hinton’s work frustrating. On the one hand, I find his effort to renew Chan teachings in the west very admirable and his intentions are very stimulating. His whole project is very cool but the hangup for me lies in its execution. I really want to like his work (I purchased nearly all of it).

For example, in China Root” which is mostly his own prose and exposition, I find him to be maybe not the best at didactic discussion. He gets really stuck on his neologisms for Taoist concepts, imo. Even though his translations of Chan works (particularly of the transliteration of ancient teachers) is somewhat irritating, those are okay.

Ok my main question: is there a book in the spirit of China Root but maybe written by a trained academic/teacher?

I’d really like to read a deep discussion of how Chan was influenced by Taoism. I do like Guo Gu’s lectures on this.